[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution

> The attached document details a modification written by Zephaniah E. Hull
> and I, which I am proposing as an amendment to the Debian Constitution.
> This hopefully solves one or two problems we have identified in Debian,
> namely closed teams (new-maintainer, ftp maint etc.), stagnation of these
> teams, and the current issue of new maintainer being closed.

I think this is fundamentally flawed for the reasons others have
explained - basically, that you're trying to punish people for being
busy and/or having a life, and that `shouting' isn't going to help -
what's required is people to do work, not people to tell other people
to do work.

I'm really posting to make an important technical point.  Your changes
are in conflict with this basic principle:
  2.1. General rules
    1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
       work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task
       which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to
       do it. However, they must not actively work against these rules
       and decisions properly made under them.

You should modify your proposal so that it deletes or modifies this
paragraph, so that we can see what it is you're trying to do.

Personally I'm *very strongly* opposed to modification of this
paragraph, and the reason I want you to add an amendment to it is to
show that you're breaking this vital rule !

>     3. The Project Leader's Delegate(s) may decide not to admit any new
>        Developers (close the New Maintainer process), until the next
>        release of debian, provided Developers are in favour of this 
>        by a 3:1 majority.  New Maintainer may be reopened either when the
>        Developers agree to do so by a 3:1 majority, or the next version
>        of Debian has been released. New maintainer may be closed for longer
>        than this time only if a General Resolution is passed.

This, of course, is silly, both because the Delegates can decide not
to admit new developers anyway, and because it's a specific fix -
specific cases make bad law.

If you don't like the fact that the Delegates have chosen to close
new-maintainer, and are too lazy to actually get off your arse to do
the job yourself but not too lazy to make a fuss, then you can use

4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
  4.1. Powers
   Together, the Developers may:
    3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
8. The Project Leader's Delegates
  8.2. Appointment
   The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be
   replaced by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. [...]

to do so.  Be sure that your proposed resolution is specific (eg,
`admit these named people X, Y, Z as developers', or `appoint
developers A, B, C to new-maintainer and allow them to reopen it').


Reply to: